An Empirical Investigation of Defense Interpretation Depth, Defensive Functioning, and Alliance Strength in Psychodynamic Psychotherapy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined the relationship between depth of defense interpretations by therapists, and patient defensive functioning, on the therapeutic alliance in a sample of 36 patients undergoing short-term dynamic psychotherapy. Defense interpretation depth was defined as the degree to which therapist interpretations contained information regarding the motivation for patient defenses and historical origins of the defensive processes (Greensen, 1967). Mean depth of interpretation was compared between sessions that were identified beforehand as either high-alliance or low-alliance sessions using the Helping Alliance Questionnaire (HAq-II: Luborsky et al., 1996). Results indicated that defensive functioning was correlated to defense interpretation depth in low-alliance sessions. Moreover, mean depth of interpretation was also higher in low-alliance sessions, pointing to the possible "destabilizing" effects that these interpretations may have on both defensive functioning and the therapeutic alliance. These results are discussed within the context of previous studies of therapeutic technique in dynamic psychotherapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it